ThoughtSource: A central hub for large language model reasoning data

A comparison of chain-of-thought reasoning strategies across datasets and models

Emergent chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning capabilities promise to improve the performance and explainability of large language models (LLMs). However, uncertainties remain about how reasoning strategies formulated for previous model generations generalize to new model generations and different datasets. In this small-scale study, we compare different reasoning strategies induced by zero-shot prompting across six recently released LLMs (davinci-002, davinci-003, GPT-3.5-turbo, GPT-4, Flan-T5-xxl and Cohere command-xlarge). We test them on six question-answering datasets that require real-world knowledge application and logical verbal reasoning, including datasets from scientific and medical domains. Our findings demonstrate that while some variations in effectiveness occur, gains from CoT reasoning strategies remain robust across different models and datasets. GPT-4 benefits the most from current state-of-the-art reasoning strategies and performs best by applying a prompt previously discovered through automated discovery.

Are large language models valid tools for patient information on lumbar disc herniation? The spine surgeons' perspective

Introduction

Generative AI is revolutionizing patient education in healthcare, particularly through chatbots that offer personalized, clear medical information. Reliability and accuracy are vital in AI-driven patient education.

Research question

How effective are Large Language Models (LLM), such as ChatGPT and Google Bard, in delivering accurate and understandable patient education on lumbar disc herniation?

Material and methods

Ten Frequently Asked Questions about lumbar disc herniation were selected from 133 questions and were submitted to three LLMs. Six experienced spine surgeons rated the responses on a scale from "excellent" to "unsatisfactory," and evaluated the answers for exhaustiveness, clarity, empathy, and length. Statistical analysis involved Fleiss Kappa, Chi-square, and Friedman tests.

Results

Out of the responses, 27.2% were excellent, 43.9% satisfactory with minimal clarification, 18.3% satisfactory with moderate clarification, and 10.6% unsatisfactory. There were no significant differences in overall ratings among the LLMs (p = 0.90); however, inter-rater reliability was not achieved, and large differences among raters were detected in the distribution of answer frequencies. Overall, ratings varied among the 10 answers (p = 0.043). The average ratings for exhaustiveness, clarity, empathy, and length were above 3.5/5.

Discussion and conclusion

LLMs show potential in patient education for lumbar spine surgery, with generally positive feedback from evaluators. The new EU AI Act, enforcing strict regulation on AI systems, highlights the need for rigorous oversight in medical contexts. In the current study, the variability in evaluations and occasional inaccuracies underline the need for continuous improvement. Future research should involve more advanced models to enhance patient-physician communication.

Can large language models reason about medical questions?

Although large language models often produce impressive outputs, it remains unclear how they perform in real-world scenarios requiring strong reasoning skills and expert domain knowledge. We set out to investigate whether closed- and open-source models (GPT-3.5, Llama 2, etc.) can be applied to answer and reason about difficult real-world-based questions. We focus on three popular medical benchmarks (MedQA-US Medical Licensing Examination [USMLE], MedMCQA, and PubMedQA) and multiple prompting scenarios: chain of thought (CoT; think step by step), few shot, and retrieval augmentation. Based on an expert annotation of the generated CoTs, we found that InstructGPT can often read, reason, and recall expert knowledge. Last, by leveraging advances in prompt engineering (few-shot and ensemble methods), we demonstrated that GPT-3.5 not only yields calibrated predictive distributions but also reaches the passing score on three datasets: MedQA-USMLE (60.2%), MedMCQA (62.7%), and PubMedQA (78.2%). Open-source models are closing the gap: Llama 2 70B also passed the MedQA-USMLE with 62.5% accuracy.

Chain of Thought Utilization in Large Language Models and Application in Nephrology

Chain-of-thought prompting enhances the abilities of large language models (LLMs) significantly. It not only makes these models more specific and context-aware but also impacts the wider field of artificial intelligence (AI). This approach broadens the usability of AI, increases its efficiency, and aligns it more closely with human thinking and decision-making processes. As we improve this method, it is set to become a key element in the future of AI, adding more purpose, precision, and ethical consideration to these technologies. In medicine, the chain-of-thought prompting is especially beneficial. Its capacity to handle complex information, its logical and sequential reasoning, and its suitability for ethically and context-sensitive situations make it an invaluable tool for healthcare professionals. Its role in enhancing medical care and research is expected to grow as we further develop and use this technique. Chain-of-thought prompting bridges the gap between AI's traditionally obscure decision-making process and the clear, accountable standards required in healthcare. It does this by emulating a reasoning style familiar to medical professionals, fitting well into their existing practices and ethical codes. While solving AI transparency is a complex challenge, the chain-of-thought approach is a significant step toward making AI more comprehensible and trustworthy in medicine. This review focuses on understanding the workings of LLMs, particularly how chain-of-thought prompting can be adapted for nephrology's unique requirements. It also aims to thoroughly examine the ethical aspects, clarity, and future possibilities, offering an in-depth view of the exciting convergence of these areas.